This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540667
Jonathan Carone wrote:What about all the other reports? The mall banning him? Other people saying it was a known thing? Are those all not credible as well?

This may have been brought to light because of dirty politics but it's overwhelmingly obvious that Moore liked young girls.


2 things. There is a difference between liking young girls and liking underage girls. People saying ‘it was a known’ thing is irrelevant. Ask what specifically was known and you will get different answers.
If he truly was a sexual predator who liked underage girls there would be more contemporaneous stories of his predations. It’s a known, fact that sexual predators of underage girls continue to do so. He wouldn’t have just stopped in his mid 30’s
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#540669
Jonathan Carone wrote:What about all the other reports? The mall banning him? Other people saying it was a known thing? Are those all not credible as well?

This may have been brought to light because of dirty politics but it's overwhelmingly obvious that Moore liked young girls.


i don't know why people are falling on the sword for this wierdo.
By Yacht Rock
#540675
RubberMallet wrote:
Jonathan Carone wrote:What about all the other reports? The mall banning him? Other people saying it was a known thing? Are those all not credible as well?

This may have been brought to light because of dirty politics but it's overwhelmingly obvious that Moore liked young girls.


i don't know why people are falling on the sword for this wierdo.


Pride, maybe. Who knows.
By BuryYourDuke
#540687 I think a couple of things are at play really. The first, is that the media has literally zero credibility with run of the mill Americans, especially in "red" areas. They just don't believe or care about what they say. The 2016 election was the culmination of that phenomenon.

The second, and this will irk people, is that a lot of people choose policies over character. Right or wrong, I think an increasing number of people are choosing someone that represents their interests in the halls of power, regardless of whether they believe them to be good people. Given the choice of that versus the guy that sells your people out at every opportunity, but maintains his "respectability", I'm not sure they are wrong.

It's unfortunate that we aren't getting the option of character and policy very often, but it's the state of our society.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540692
BuryYourDuke wrote:The second, and this will irk people, is that a lot of people choose policies over character. Right or wrong, I think an increasing number of people are choosing someone that represents their interests in the halls of power, regardless of whether they believe them to be good people. Given the choice of that versus the guy that sells your people out at every opportunity, but maintains his "respectability", I'm not sure they are wrong.


Then say that. I respect you a lot more for verbalizing that than I do the evangelical leaders who try to bastardize Christianity and the Gospel to justify some of the horrible behaviors. Don’t sell me that Trump is a great Christian. Don’t justify preying on young girls by comparing it to Mary and Joseph. I believe there is room in the Gospel to disagree politically. I’m good disagreeing there. I don’t think there’s room in the Gospel to justify sexual assault.
By BuryYourDuke
#540693 We can agree there. But at the same time, isn't that sort of what someone is saying in a round about way when they say "they are electing a president, not a Sunday school teacher"?
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540695 It is. And I respect that statement. But that statement is negated when you continue to try to justify a candidate from a Christian perspective. You can’t play both sides of that card.
User avatar
By R i
#540788 *breathes a sigh of relief*- That was not that bad. Jerry did not support him or sexual assault. He just made a statement that accusations are sometimes false in political gamesmanship.

@Jim Ziegler - Mary was a virgin you goofball.
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#540791
BuryYourDuke wrote:We can agree there. But at the same time, isn't that sort of what someone is saying in a round about way when they say "they are electing a president, not a Sunday school teacher"?


if i have a mechanic who's really good at fixing cars but looks a crapton of child porn and i find out about it somehow, i'm probably going to find a new mechanic. i'm generally not going to say "who cares i'm looking for a mechanic, not a pastor"
By jinxy
#540825 I have been saying that for months. Thats my only problem of jr in all this discussion. Simply state you think hes the best option and use the sunday school analogy. You cant possibly defend all of trumps actions as a christian. Its a battle and argument that you cant win. I think he was right but he just didnt describe his support the way he should have.

As far moore. Byd is correct. Most people that are moderate or right leaning or far right simply have zero respect for the media. Their narrative is so predictable and biased that its difficult to believe anything they say. Weve gone from reporting to nothing but opinion and support your position in the media.

The biggest part that doesnt make sense for moore is that if he was known to be such a creep then why wouldnt these folks have come forward. I totally get it if this guy was a standup guy with a great rep. It would be tough to challenge. But if hes the town flirt and creep then it should have been easy. He did present a pretty good defense against one of the claims today i saw. Basically the accuser was grinding an old ax from a divorce proceeding that he was over. Havent heard much of a defense on the others.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#540827
jinxy wrote:As far moore. Byd is correct. Most people that are moderate or right leaning or far right simply have zero respect for the media. Their narrative is so predictable and biased that its difficult to believe anything they say. Weve gone from reporting to nothing but opinion and support your position in the media.


If we're talking purely politics, I can see this viewpoint. However, switch the lens you're looking through for this story. When you look at this through the post-Weinstein lens, you see it's another example of something that has been exposed by legitimate journalism. The stories and research being written on the sexual assault by men in power (Weinstein, Spacey, Louis CK, etc) have been nothing short of unbiased, great journalism. It's my belief those stories are what allowed these women to have the confidence to speak publicly. That confidence was then amplified because of politics.
By BuryYourDuke
#540836 when someone says "look at things through this lens" what they actually mean is, utilize this bias and presupposition.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#540861 Another revelation that Roy Moore is guilty!! ‘Unwanted Advances’ is a pretty broad (pardon the pun) phrase. I would wager every single one of us have made some type of ‘unwanted advance’. And when denied let it be. We apparently are now all criminals

User avatar
By LUminary
#540890 Al Franken kissed and groped me without my consent,’ broadcaster Leeann Tweeden says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/16/al-franken-kissed-and-groped-me-without-my-consent-broadcaster-leeann-tweeden-says/?utm_term=.b8666eb0660d
By ALUmnus
#540889 Al Franken:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42018154

Bob Menendez:
Too much to link, but Google about the sitting US Senator and his ongoing corruption trial that possibly involved underage prostitutes.

Roy Moore should probably concede to his primary opponent (even though this is obviously dirty politics), and these two above should resign immediately.

Can we stop putting trash on the ballots?
User avatar
By flameshaw
#540939 Not sure I have seen "legitimate" or "great journalism" in many,many years, but I tend to be more cynical than most. In addition, I am older than dirt, so I do remember when one could primarily count on the news to be somewhat truthful.
I have already heard a journalist on the tv today, saying how different the Roy Moore and Al Franken situations are. (She was defending AF). The only difference that I see, is that there are pictures of AF doing his thing and none of Roy Moore.
Based on the information that has come out on RM the last couple of days, I am more inclined to believe there may be something to the accusations against him. But I am still open to giving him a little more time. Some of the RM accusers family members have called them liars and there appears to be some question over the veracity of the signatures in the yearbook.
Interested in seeing where this goes. Can't see how AF survives this one, but he is a Dim-o-crap, so it is always a possibility. Looks like Menendez has dodged a major bullet.
By lynchburgwildcats
#541018
RubberMallet wrote:
Jonathan Carone wrote:What about all the other reports? The mall banning him? Other people saying it was a known thing? Are those all not credible as well?

This may have been brought to light because of dirty politics but it's overwhelmingly obvious that Moore liked young girls.


i don't know why people are falling on the sword for this wierdo.

Because both Republicans and Democrats in general are obsessed with supporting people form their party no matter what. Some politicians sometimes show they actually have a moral backbone, but it seems like 99 times out of 100 they don't. This whole idea of party > country nonsense is cancerous.
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#541303 yeah its been fascinating. moore deny deny deny his supporters are split to me. some are "we don't believe it happened" and the other half is "who cares, we can't let a dem have it"

then on the other side, i don't see much denial. yet you see a lot of victim blaming on on one hand. then on the other hand you see these people who made these people their heros are like LOST

i'm like if you are "All my life I looked up to a guy who had bit parts on Saturday Night Live and wrote books with titles like Why I'm Really Really Smart And All Republicans Are Big Dumb Poopyheads." then you are an idiot and have bad heros.
User avatar
By ElmersTwin
#541459
RubberMallet wrote:yeah its been fascinating. moore deny deny deny his supporters are split to me. some are "we don't believe it happened" and the other half is "who cares, we can't let a dem have it"

then on the other side, i don't see much denial. yet you see a lot of victim blaming on on one hand. then on the other hand you see these people who made these people their heros are like LOST

i'm like if you are "All my life I looked up to a guy who had bit parts on Saturday Night Live and wrote books with titles like Why I'm Really Really Smart And All Republicans Are Big Dumb Poopyheads." then you are an idiot and have bad heros.


And then you have those with a new take on the situation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... eir-purity
By rhezick
#541518
ElmersTwin wrote:
RubberMallet wrote:yeah its been fascinating. moore deny deny deny his supporters are split to me. some are "we don't believe it happened" and the other half is "who cares, we can't let a dem have it"

then on the other side, i don't see much denial. yet you see a lot of victim blaming on on one hand. then on the other hand you see these people who made these people their heros are like LOST

i'm like if you are "All my life I looked up to a guy who had bit parts on Saturday Night Live and wrote books with titles like Why I'm Really Really Smart And All Republicans Are Big Dumb Poopyheads." then you are an idiot and have bad heros.


And then you have those with a new take on the situation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... eir-purity


I've seen that line pop up a few times now and I'm so sick of it. It doesn't matter if you have the parents permission. If he in fact did anything with underage girls he's a pedophile and I hope he rots in hell, with an extra layer of torment thrown in just for him.
By olldflame
#541538
rhezick wrote:
ElmersTwin wrote:
RubberMallet wrote:yeah its been fascinating. moore deny deny deny his supporters are split to me. some are "we don't believe it happened" and the other half is "who cares, we can't let a dem have it"

then on the other side, i don't see much denial. yet you see a lot of victim blaming on on one hand. then on the other hand you see these people who made these people their heros are like LOST

i'm like if you are "All my life I looked up to a guy who had bit parts on Saturday Night Live and wrote books with titles like Why I'm Really Really Smart And All Republicans Are Big Dumb Poopyheads." then you are an idiot and have bad heros.


And then you have those with a new take on the situation.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... eir-purity


I've seen that line pop up a few times now and I'm so sick of it. It doesn't matter if you have the parents permission. If he in fact did anything with underage girls he's a pedophile and I hope he rots in hell, with an extra layer of torment thrown in just for him.


So, he deserves this.........unless the girl was considered of legal age in the state she lived in, in which case it was OK? Or do you appoint yourself judge jury and executioner to determine what is acceptable? I understand the outrage in cases where a person who is clearly a child is involved, but the bottom line is, the law determines when that is, and since those laws vary depending on where you are, I tend to question looking at it in such black and white terms. If you break the law, you should pay the penalty the law imposes, but condemning men to hell is for God to decide. As far as the number of years difference in age is concerned, to say that having a relationship with a girl who is young, but is of legal age, is wrong for one man and not another based on how old they are, has no real moral basis. It is basically a matter of cultural acceptance.
User avatar
By adam42381
#541560
Yacht Rock wrote:I’d feel confident saying that I’d not want a man who was trying to court high school girls while he was over 30 to represent me in government. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean he’s not a creeper.

Exactly. A man in his thirties dating a 16 year old is creepy and abnormal. What could he possibly have in common with a 10th grader? I don’t care if it’s legal or not.
By rhezick
#541563
So, he deserves this.........unless the girl was considered of legal age in the state she lived in, in which case it was OK? Or do you appoint yourself judge jury and executioner to determine what is acceptable? I understand the outrage in cases where a person who is clearly a child is involved, but the bottom line is, the law determines when that is, and since those laws vary depending on where you are, I tend to question looking at it in such black and white terms. If you break the law, you should pay the penalty the law imposes, but condemning men to hell is for God to decide. As far as the number of years difference in age is concerned, to say that having a relationship with a girl who is young, but is of legal age, is wrong for one man and not another based on how old they are, has no real moral basis. It is basically a matter of cultural acceptance.


First, thanks for clarifying that I can't condemn a man to hell. Totally didn't know that. I guess my weekend plans are now blown to bits.

Second, I get there are some gray areas. But 14 doesn't seem to be one. And if your using the whole "16 is kind of sort of legal in some states" just stop. As adam and yacht have already stated, that's just....gross and weird. Throw the whole legal argument out the window (along with my newly discovered inability to condemn people to hell) and how about we agree that such an age preference for your dating life is disgusting. On top of that, my point was that every interview I've heard from him or his surrogates have used that "permission" defense over and over again. Seems weak.
By olldflame
#541564
Yacht Rock wrote:I’d feel confident saying that I’d not want a man who was trying to court high school girls while he was over 30 to represent me in government. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean he’s not a creeper.


Of course you do realize that Mary was almost certainly about that age when Jesus was born. Possibly even younger.

My point here is that the reason you (and a lot of other people) feel the way you do about it is neither the law or Biblical Morality. It is cultural.
By Yacht Rock
#541569 That’s fine, but culturally, it’s creepy and I’m fine drawing a line in the sand there. Lol @ your JOSEPH/Mary defense. I’m guessing you don’t have a 14-16 year old daughter that a 30+ year old is trying to take on dates? Maybe you’re cool with that. As the father of a young girl who will be 14 in a few days and as a man who is over 30 but under 40, it would be super duper creepy if a dude around my age was trying to pick up on my daughter. Not the ilk I’d be hanging with.
By olldflame
#541573
Yacht Rock wrote:That’s fine, but culturally, it’s creepy and I’m fine drawing a line in the sand there. Lol @ your JOSEPH/Mary defense. I’m guessing you don’t have a 14-16 year old daughter that a 30+ year old is trying to take on dates? Maybe you’re cool with that. As the father of a young girl who will be 14 in a few days and as a man who is over 30 but under 40, it would be super duper creepy if a dude around my age was trying to pick up on my daughter. Not the ilk I’d be hanging with.


I was not referring to Joseph.
By dbackjon
#541712
Purple Haize wrote:
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.


Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting



Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.
By dbackjon
#541715 Fascinating read on the minds of the some of the Liberty Faithful. Pretty sure I am witnessing the first death throes of American Evangelicalism - with the false piety, money lust, and complete sellout of morality for unabashed power-grabbing (pussy or otherwise).

When you are relying on the devil to advance your goals, you are going to end up advancing the devil, not your goals. Jesus fed the hungry, healed the sick, threw out the money-changers. Today's GOP does quite the opposite of that. Today, the first state ran out of CHIP money, throwing CHILDREN out of medical coverage.

And finally, many are beginning to notice - the real press, not FoxNews, which lies most of the time (just like Trump)...

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news ... 889872001/
By dbackjon
#541717 Of course, given Liberty's embrace of the Baylor Athletic model, most of you seem to be ok with being led by someone that covered up rape, and since you will be enjoying Ray Rice at Convocation, wife beaters as well.

It really speaks to how evangelicals view women - as property, breeding stock, not worthy of equality.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
#541719 Dude you’re throwing some extremely broad nets there. You’re lumping everyone connected to Liberty with the leadership of Liberty. We have an entire thread devoted to how many of us disagree with Jr on a number of things.

As for Ray Rice, he’s been invited because he made a terrible mistake and has learned from it and is now an advocate against what he did. Like it or not, we will always be a school it second chances and redemption stories.
By phoenix
#541725 If Roy Moore was a Democrat, we'd all be calling for his head - regardless of the quality of the evidence against him.

When the stuff about Trump came out, I said that if we supported him, we needed to apologize to Bill Clinton. That's still true. IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.
By rhezick
#541727
phoenix wrote:... IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.


Excellent statement. Nothing drives me more batty than a lack of argumentative consistency.
By thepostman
#541728
phoenix wrote:If Roy Moore was a Democrat, we'd all be calling for his head - regardless of the quality of the evidence against him.

When the stuff about Trump came out, I said that if we supported him, we needed to apologize to Bill Clinton. That's still true. IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.


Exactly This.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#541730
dbackjon wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.


Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting



Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.


And you’ve lost any and all credibility with that statement
Although you did get bonus points for actually showing up again
User avatar
By makarov97
#541731
dbackjon wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
makarov97 wrote:Pretty laughable and predictable responses by some of the triggered holier than thou millennials in here.

We are in a society right now, where this pathetic "accusers have the right to be believed" mantra has turned the entire nation into the Salem witch trials.

Accusers have the right to fairly present EVIDENCE. They ALWAYS, and WITHOUT QUESTION, must bear the burden of proof. In criminal court. In civil court. In the court of public opinion.

If it isn't that way, we no longer live in a free society, and anyone at any time, can destroy another with an accusation.

If there is actual evidence, so be it. Let the chips fall where they may. If its an accusation, you make the accuser PROVE the charge. Especially if there is a categorical denial on the part of the other.

The triggered snowflakes were devastated by the loss of their lesbian queen, and they are doing everything possible to try to turn society into something where they can gain power.

This latest attempt is one of the most dangerous that I have ever seen.

Duke Lacrosse and UVA come to mind as to why you don't believe accusers and accusations without question.

There were just a couple of hoax/false accusations incidents in Lynchburg not all that long ago.

And just to head off any nonsense, I believe that same standard should apply across the board, even to people whom I politically disagree with. For instance, the accusations against George Takei that just came out. I can't stand Takei. He's a disgusting sodomite. However, he should get all the benefit of the doubt, absent EVIDENCE, especially since he has issued a denial.

It can't be any other way in a free society.


Don’t forget Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Ginger White and Herman Cain. And the earliest I remember is the McMartin Preschool Trial. I’m sure there are many others I’m forgetting



Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.


Really now? I must ask you, Mr. Mann, what is it like to constantly seek out your safe spaces and throw malicious libel at others?

Why don't you let everyone in on your real reason for your bomb throwing here:

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

(I'm continually amazed at how on point the "rainbow version" of "Godwin's law" seems to be. It seems to me that the number of rainbow flags and related leftist political memes that one posts on social media directly correlates with that person being a trashy, nasty, venomous and hate-filled internet troll.) 8)
Last edited by makarov97 on November 27th, 2017, 9:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#541732
rhezick wrote:
phoenix wrote:... IF we are willing to ignore character flaws and improprieties in the people we LIKE because they agree with us politically, we lose the ability to attack the character of those we disagree with.


Excellent statement. Nothing drives me more batty than a lack of argumentative consistency.


I had 2 problems with Clinton. The first was he lied under oath. That’s not something to take lightly. I really didn’t care that he was getting skin fluted in the Oval Office (although some of the times when it was happening were questionable if they were to be believed.
Second, I’m sure she had a nice personality and all but I thought the Leader of the Free World could do better
By ballah09
#541734
Anita Hill was correct - and we have a sexual predator on the SCOTUS because of it.

Really now? I must ask you, Mr. Mann, since you are a sniveling liberal coward, what is it like to constantly seek out your safe spaces and throw malicious libel at others?

Why don't you let everyone in on your real reason for your bomb throwing here:

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."


resort to insults? really?

Lahren at convo should be entertaining. I already saw couple of our athletes delete their tweets when it was announced. aka not happy.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#541741
thepostman wrote:I'm always confused why people enjoy listening to people like Lahren...


Remember when people like Sam Donaldson were considered Flame Throwers and Rush Limbaugh The Fringe?
User avatar
By jbock13
#541928 I’d love to see someone like Ben Shapiro speak at Convo, but I guess he doesn’t hump Trump enough to be offered an invitation.